Keith Lusher 04.25.25
The Trump administration has taken an important step toward reducing regulatory burdens on American businesses and landowners through a new proposal that would reinterpret key definitions in the Endangered Species Act. This welcome change would narrow the definition of “harm” to exclude habitat modification, thereby bringing clarity and precision to regulations that have often overreached their original intent.
At issue are the longstanding definitions of two terms in the Endangered Species Act: “harm” and “take.” The proposed rule from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service would reinterpret these terms to focus on direct actions against protected species rather than indirect habitat modifications.
This change represents a return to the actual text of the law as Congress intended it to be. As the administration correctly points out, the term “take” has a centuries-old understanding as meaning to kill or capture a wild animal. It was unelected regulators who expanded this definition beyond what Congress authorized, burdening landowners and businesses with excessive restrictions.
The rule cites the conservative opinion in a 1995 Supreme Court case that challenged the extent to which federal regulators could implement congressional acts. Last year’s Supreme Court decision overturning the “Chevron deference” provides additional legal support for this reinterpretation.
For American businesses and landowners, this change brings much-needed relief from regulations that have prevented economic development across the country. The reform offers numerous advantages, including accelerated economic development in previously restricted areas, enhanced energy independence through reduced barriers to domestic production, a more balanced approach to conservation that respects property rights, and greater regulatory certainty for businesses planning projects.
As pointed out by Connor Mighell, an attorney with Texas Public Policy Foundation, the current regulatory process can take years to complete even simple delisting procedures. The executive order could help stop the Endangered Species Act from resulting in drawn-out permitting processes and lengthy litigation.
While opponents of this change claim it will accelerate species decline, they often use the so-called “climate crisis” as justification for maintaining onerous restrictions. The reality is that this reform restores the balance between conservation goals and legitimate economic activities.
The Trump administration’s approach recognizes that protecting endangered species does not have to come at the cost of stifling economic growth and energy production. Rather than regulating vast swaths of land based on tenuous connections to endangered species, this policy will focus protections where they truly matter – on actual, direct harm to protected species.
This common-sense reform returns power to Congress and away from unelected bureaucrats, creating a more predictable regulatory environment that will unleash American economic potential while still maintaining appropriate protections for truly endangered species.
Trending Products
